Lds Temple Ceremonies And Indigenous Tribal Rituals

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

No it wouldn't. I am not sure how being removed means not sacred anymore.

So, you think that elements of the LDS temple ceremony that were removed are still sacred, even though they are no longer part of any sacred ceremony? How can they still be sacred?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

I had written:

"Mormons are an ethnoreligious group? That would have been a more plausible claim prior to 1978."

You asked:

It wasn't arbitrary. 1978 was the year that the LDS priesthood was officially opened to worthy men of all races. Up to that point the ethnic makeup of Mormonism was not monolithic but it was far more homogeneous than it is now.

Utter rot.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

Utter rot.

Thanks for the informative analysis.

[Pahoran]

Thanks for the informative analysis.

It's at least as informative as your airy, unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for any radical shift in the Church's cultural-ethnic makeup post-1978; AFAICT, the trends already well in place before that time have simply continued.

And apart from that, you were clearly equivocating. When people refer to Mormons as a kind of ethnic group, they are doing so based upon the perception of an apparent "Mormon culture," not because they imagine we are, or ever were, all as white as the average Southern Baptist congregation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

It's at least as informative as your airy, unsupported assertion. There is no evidence for any radical shift in the Church's cultural-ethnic makeup post-1978; AFAICT, the trends already well in place before that time have simply continued.

"Radical shift" is a straw-man representation of my argument, which was simply that after 1978 the LDS Church became far more heterogeneous than it was before. No implication of an instant transformation or overnight change was made.

And apart from that, you were clearly equivocating. When people refer to Mormons as a kind of ethnic group, they are doing so based upon the perception of an apparent "Mormon culture," not because they imagine we are, or ever were, all as white as the average Southern Baptist congregation.

Nice -- a diversionary comment and a cheap shot all in one. I worked at the Southern Baptists' North American Mission Board for two years (2006-2008), and your comment does not reflect reality. But you know, when someone says "ethno-" I assume they mean it. You are free to reinterpret them to mean something more defensible, of course.

[Pahoran]

"Radical shift" is a straw-man representation of my argument, which was simply that after 1978 the LDS Church became far more heterogeneous than it was before. No implication of an instant transformation or overnight change was made.

Then you admit that you have no basis for choosing 1978 over any other year. Presumably the Church is more "heterogeneous" now than it was in 1954 or 1867 too.

Do you have any evidence that any of the trends starting in (say) 1945 actually changed observably in 1978?

Nice -- a diversionary comment and a cheap shot all in one.

Given that we all know why you chose 1978, I'm afraid you are throwing stones from inside your own glass house when you affect to protest a "cheap shot."

I worked at the Southern Baptists' North American Mission Board for two years (2006-2008), and your comment does not reflect reality.

And did you ever, in that time, enter any Southern Baptist churches during "the most segregated hour," i.e. 11 o'clock on Sunday morning?

But you know, when someone says "ethno-" I assume they mean it. You are free to reinterpret them to mean something more defensible, of course.

Here is what BlueDreams said:

But we are considered an ethnoreligious group and have specific practices that are culturally/religious unique…the temple is at the top of the list.

The fact that she talked about culture and specifically referenced the Temple ought to be a clue. I agree that one of us might be trying to "reinterpret" something, but I don't think it's me.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

So . . . once somebody makes black folks priests they no longer are entitled to have their sacred rites respected?

[Calm]

The fact that she talked about culture and specifically referenced the Temple ought to be a clue. I agree that one of us might be trying to "reinterpret" something, but I don't think it's me.

eth·nic

   [eth-nik]

adjective

1.

pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

http://dictionary.re...owse/ethnic?s=t

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Desecration of a Bible perhaps? I do not know if this bothers nonLDS Christians who choose to post the endowment but it would seem likely to given that some of the street preachers have chosen to demonstrate their negative opinion of our faith and temple by dragging the BoM and/or temple garments through the gutter in front of temple or conference goers, in some cases apparently attempting to incite LDS observers into violence.

Obviously that is the worst they can do, so perhaps you are right.

Rather than carrying around a full bible to study from, I bought a cheap King James at Walmart- and cut it into 100 page or so chunks so it would be easy to carry and study while I was commuting on the subway, and a LOT of people mentioned that I should have not cut up a Bible.

Maybe you are right!

[KevinG]

http://dictionary.re...owse/ethnic?s=t

If it isn't part of Rob's interpretation of the Bible it doesn't count. Didn't you get the memo?

[mfbukowski]

I had written:

"Mormons are an ethnoreligious group? That would have been a more plausible claim prior to 1978."

My first reaction to this was tangibly wince and to find it quite racist. The implication to me was that Blacks could not possibly be part of an "ethnoreligious group" with whites.

Yet families are families regardless of what tone of brown we are- light brown to dark brown.

But of course I am sure I am wrong that that is what was intended.

[Calm]

Glad to know I wasn't the only one to respond that way to his comment.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

Pahoran,

I had written:

"Mormons are an ethnoreligious group? That would have been a more plausible claim prior to 1978."

You asked:

It wasn't arbitrary. 1978 was the year that the LDS priesthood was officially opened to worthy men of all races. Up to that point the ethnic makeup of Mormonism was not monolithic but it was far more homogeneous than it is now.

That would be priesthood not church, and ironically it was a full decade prior to the Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Race. The LDS Church has been home to mixed races from the start. Our congregations were never segregated and we aligned with the abolitionists (which was part of our troubles with the neighbors along with polygamy)

Watch where you are throwing those stones Rob. You keep catching the panes in your glass house.

Edited September 11, 2012 by KevinG

[Bernard Gui]

Rob used to take pride in thinking himself a different species of anti-Mormon - far removed from the garment flaunters and the street screechers and the voyeurs sneaking into the temples to get photos and recordings of the secret ceremonies. His approach was to be scholarly, reasoned, scriptural, dispassionate, firm but respectful, rigorous but truthful.

Then one day for some crazy reason he decided to join their ranks. He revealed himself as just one of the many run-of-the-mill detractors. He threw the endowment in the rubbish bin.

Perhaps he truly doesn't realize the magnitude of his lamentable action, perhaps he is embarrassed by this betrayal and does not know how to make amends, or perhaps he simply lacks the wherewithal to apologize for causing great offense.

Whatever the circumstance, he must feel some heartburn, because Rob needs to show up once in a while not to discuss an issue at hand but to rationalize his publication of the sacred endowment. Being the non-Mormon world's greatest authority on all things Mormon, he regularly tries to convince us that we really ought not be put out with him. Can't we still be friends? Well, no.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Alan]

Alan,

You wrote:

In any case, the fact that elements could be removed from the ceremony certainly seems to imply that those removed elements are no longer sacred, doesn't it?

No.

[Alan]

I'm sorry Mr Bowman, you are just plain wrong on the reasons for the temple endowment changes, and I suspect you know it.

To continue to assert something you must know to be wrong says everything I need to know about you and I therefore do not see any point in continuing to engage with you.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

Let's both agree to move past the sound bites. I am happy to agree that Mormonism has never been a single ethnic group. It has never been a tribe. It is even more heterogeneous now than in the past. Nothing magical happened in this regard in 1978, even though that date marked an important advance in the LDS Church's efforts to become even more multi-ethnic than it already was. Blue Dream's description of Mormonism as an "ethnoreligious group," then, is inaccurate. It was not accurate before 1978 and it is not accurate now.

My point, then, remains unchallenged: Mormonism is not the same kind of group as a tribe. It never has been. Therefore, the comparison of LDS secret rituals to secret indigenous tribal rituals is at least open to question and, as I have argued, bears some onus probandi.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

My first reaction to this was tangibly wince and to find it quite racist. The implication to me was that Blacks could not possibly be part of an "ethnoreligious group" with whites.

Yet families are families regardless of what tone of brown we are- light brown to dark brown.

But of course I am sure I am wrong that that is what was intended.

If you are quite sure the statement was not intended to be racist, why are you poisoning the well by bringing it up?

[Rob Bowman]

Alan,

You wrote:

I'm sorry Mr Bowman, you are just plain wrong on the reasons for the temple endowment changes, and I suspect you know it. To continue to assert something you must know to be wrong says everything I need to know about you and I therefore do not see any point in continuing to engage with you.

You are at liberty to ignore me if you choose. But your claim that I know that what I am saying is wrong is mistaken. Please consider the possibility that someone might sincerely disagree with you.

[Anijen]

Alan,

You wrote:

You are at liberty to ignore me if you choose. But your claim that I know that what I am saying is wrong is mistaken. Please consider the possibility that someone might sincerely disagree with you.

No Rob, Alan not only disagreed with you, but you are wrong as well. You wrote;

In any case, the fact that elements could be removed from the ceremony certainly seems to imply that those removed elements are no longer sacred, doesn't it?

Alan simply replied "No"

He is right. One can remove elements and that does not take the sacredness of what they symbolized away.

I do not respond often to Rob Bowman's post because of his refusal to concede any point to one who disagrees with him.

[Storm Rider]

Rob, the temple Endowment has evolved over the history of the Church. At times, the changes may seem puzzling to members of the Church. At other times, the changes can be quite refreshing to some members. I am not sure that it is a proper way of thinking that because certain things have changed in the Endowment, the previous wording is no longer sacred. For me they remain sacred, but are just not done. The changes are not similar to dead wood that is being chipped away, but rather a question of priorities may be a more helpful way to consider it.

A pesonal opinion is that the motivation for the changes were multi-faceted. What is not surprising is that all of the changes have caused the Endowment to take less time. Less time for the Endowment means that more proxy Endowments can be completed. This is a vital and very important feature of such changes. I expect that the Endowment to continue to evolve and take less time to complete as things move forward.

[Lightbearer]

You are at liberty to ignore me if you choose. But your claim that I know that what I am saying is wrong is mistaken. Please consider the possibility that someone might sincerely disagree with you.

Of course Satan was very sincere when he rebelled in the grand council against the plan of salvation, that did not make him innocent... I hope for your sake you are ignorant of what you are doing. Who knows? Paul was zealous without knowledge when he kicked against the pricks, before he saw the light. As far as the temple endowment goes, I recieved my endowment in 1979 and although there have been some alterations they do not take away from the endowment. But I consider what was revealed to me 33 years ago just as sacred as that which is in the ceremony today. Instead of trying to abuse the Church and make light of sacred things supposing you are revealing a "cult ritual" you might consider that you are defiling that which is sacred and a covenant between the temple patron and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The reason only the worthy is allowed to attend the temple is that only those who are enlightened by the spirit of God can understand them or appreciate them for what they are holy promises which the Saints willingly take upon themselves to be able to more fully come unto Christ. The natural man knows nothing of the mysteries of God for they are foolishness to him and will remain in darkness until he yields unto the enticings of the Holy spirit so that he can understand them.

[Lightbearer]

My point, then, remains unchallenged: Mormonism is not the same kind of group as a tribe. It never has been. Therefore, the comparison of LDS secret rituals to secret indigenous tribal rituals is at least open to question and, as I have argued, bears some onus probandi.

On the contrary, Mormonism's purpose is the gather all the tribes of Israel as well as adopt in all the gentiles who want to repent and come unto the God of Israel who is Jesus Christ. The reason the Temple endowment is sacred is because it was reavealed by the true God so it stands above any other tribal rituals of apostate peoples. Yet the point is if we are right, then you place yourself in a grave position of one who is fighting against God and His "tribe."

[Tacenda]

How are the sacred covenants going to get us in a saving relationship with God? That's probably on Rob's mind. Also, maybe he's wondering why there are works for the dead when Christ saves not LDS members. Doesn't Christ visit the dead in spirit prison? Where they can accept Him?

[Nemesis]

You all are wasting your time. This is a game Rob plays just to put a stick in your eye. He will not ever concede a point and he doesn't care if you are offended. There is no point for him to continually bring up his justifications for purposely offending his neighbor. Thread closed.

Nemesis

+1!

Skylla